"The Secret Idenity of Jack the Ripper". Your thoughts?

[elleryqueen74]

I have just watched the 1988 documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper hosted by Peter Ustinov.

This documentary aims to try and explain some of the mystery around the case and even offers a prime suspect, after FBI profilers etc look into the case and give us their opinions. For example The FBI profilers believe based on the profile of the Ripper that all the letters sent to the police at the time were all fake and could not of been written by the Ripper, including the "Dear Boss" letter. It also has commentary by Donald Rumbelow and Martin Fido concerning aspects of the case.

So I am just wondering for those of you that have seen it what do you make of this documentary and its conclusions??

For those of you who haven't the complete documentary is on youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqFtvJibWKY Please watch it and let us know your thoughts.

[GUT]

G'Day EQ [don't mind the trade name]

And welcome..

t really depends on how much credence you place on profiling and perhaps even more to the point how applicable a modern profile is to events 100 years earlier.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's fun but silly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Barnaby]

G'Day EQ [don't mind the trade name]

And welcome..

t really depends on how much credence you place on profiling and perhaps even more to the point how applicable a modern profile is to events 100 years earlier.

That's a really good question. Even most of us skeptical of profiling, however, tend to make some common assumptions, such as the Ripper was not homosexual because gay "sexual" serial killers (e.g., Dahmer, Gacy) choose male victims. For this reason many disqualify Tumblety.

But was this true 125 years ago? Sex is sex of course but attitudes toward sexual orientation certainly have changed and this could affect how homosexuals perceive themselves, others, and act on their sexuality.

[elleryqueen74]

So GUT, Tom, I am guessing you don't take its conclusions seriously? or the suggestion the Dear Boss letter is a fake seriously either?

What about the suggestion from the "Panel" and Martin Fido that Kosminski was the most likely to be JtR?

[GUT]

G'day ElleryQueen

I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence to support his conclusions based on profiling.

Kosminki is probably a better Susie ct than many, the fact that he was named by police who were "on the scene" means that I would need more to rule him out. By the same token I'd also need a lot more, and I mean a LOT before I'd say he WAS Jacky.

[Tom_Wescott]

So GUT, Tom, I am guessing you don't take its conclusions seriously? or the suggestion the Dear Boss letter is a fake seriously either?

What about the suggestion from the "Panel" and Martin Fido that Kosminski was the most likely to be JtR?

The Dear Boss letter was probably a hoax, but that would be considered with or without this documentary. Martin Fido's proclamation that Kozminski was the Ripper is interesting since in his own book he reached a very different conclusion.

I put zero stock in serial killer profiling. These guys can't seem to catch modern serial killers. Considering their very limited knowledge of Victorian London, their methods would be even less effective in hunting the Ripper. Also, this documentary is quite old and far more is known about the case now than was known then.

Kozminski might have been the Ripper, but not for the reasons put forth in this documentary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[elleryqueen74]

Thanks for your replies guys. It is interesting seeing other Ripperologists thoughts on these things.

I have always been of the opinion that Kosminski was too convenient a suspect since very little was known about him and no photo's etc exist of him.

[Scott Nelson]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

[elleryqueen74]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

Well because at the time of the documentary not much was known about him besides being labelled a woman hater etc etc. Thus they could conveniently use him in the documentary as someone they could pin as a likely suspect without having to use a whole lot of evidence. For if the were going to use one of the other suspects they had on the program they would probably need more evidence to support that.

[Ozzy]

Martin Fido's proclamation that Kozminski was the Ripper is interesting since in his own book he reached a very different conclusion.

I can't recall where (maybe even a Rippercast but don't go checking them all as it might of been somewhere else like another documentary) but I have heard/read Fido talking about the The Secret Identity documentary on this issue.
He said something like he didn't get into Kozminski/Cohen/Kaminsky because of how convoluted it is. Basically it wasn't the time or place. Words to that effect.

Generally I don't like speaking about what other people have said if I can't give a direct quote and source. Hence 'something like' in bold. But I vaguely recall this issue and Fido explaining it somewhere Tom. If I remember the source I'll post again.

[elleryqueen74]

I can't recall where (maybe even a Rippercast but don't go checking them all as it might of been somewhere else like another documentary) but I have heard/read Fido talking about the The Secret Identity documentary on this issue.
He said something like he didn't get into Kozminski/Cohen/Kaminsky because of how convoluted it is. Basically it wasn't the time or place. Words to that effect.

Generally I don't like speaking about what other people have said if I can't give a direct quote and source. Hence 'something like' in bold. But I vaguely recall this issue and Fido explaining it somewhere Tom. If I remember the source I'll post again.

So Ozzy are you suggesting that at the time of the making of The Secret Identity that Fido only went along with the idea of Kozminski as a prime suspect for the Ripper because that's what the producers of that program wanted him to do? Not that at that time Fido actually thought Kozminski was an actually viable candidate for JtR?

If so this would probably fit in with my theory of at the time of the documentary Kozminski was used as a convenient suspect rather than a real serious candidate because of the lack of knowledge/photos of him.

[Barnaby]

How does that make him too convenient a suspect?

Because the more vague it is, the harder it is to refute.

[Scott Nelson]

The more detailed it is, the harder it is to refute?

[Tecs]

Dear all,

I feel awful saying it as Martin is one of the ripperologists that I really admire, but in his audio book on the case he also mentions the documentary we're discussing but he fudges it a bit.

As above I'm going from memory so don't shoot me but if I recall correctly he explains his Cohen/Kosminski theory and then in adding credibility mentions the secret identity documentary where he says

"A panel of experts was unanimous. Only Anderson's poor Polish Jew seems likely."

Which of course means Kosminski! He didn't clarify that he doesn't say he was the ripper but rather Cohen.

And on the programme in general, Philip Sugden got it right when he pointed out that although the panel did plump for Kosminski, the list they were actually asked to choose from was very poor.

regards,